Agriculture: Bluetongue

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government in the light of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs not underwriting the costs of the production of the bluetongue vaccine BTv8 in 2009, whether there are sufficient stocks of the vaccine to cater for anticipated demand; and, if not, what mechanism they have put in place to underwrite any necessary production.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Given the existing surplus of vaccine, Defra will not be underwriting the purchase of additional vaccine for livestock keepers in 2009; it will be for livestock keepers themselves to procure sufficient vaccine for their stock. This approach to vaccine supply, developed with the core group of industry stakeholders, has been adopted for two reasons:
	1. Around 12 million doses of vaccine remain in the supply chain from the 28 million bought for England in 2008. Defra is making this vaccine available to livestock keepers for use in 2009, and will go a long way to supplying likely demand in 2009.2. BTV-8 vaccine is expected to be readily available from three manufacturers who are supplying vaccine direct to the market. This was not the case earlier in the year when Defra had to stimulate supply by placing a firm order. Defra's actions have now stimulated the market to the degree that continued intervention by Defra is not necessary to ensure supply of additional vaccine, which can be delivered through the open market.
	However, Defra will monitor uptake regularly in 2009 and reserves the right to intervene in the event of supply problems.

Agriculture: BSE

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the requirement in clause 7 of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1881) that occupiers have to behave "in accordance with the requirements of the Community TSE Regulation and these Regulations" means that livestock farmers may risk prosecution if they lack direct knowledge of the relevant community regulations and directives.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2008 apply the sanctions necessary to ensure compliance with obligations imposed directly on livestock keepers and others by "the Community TSE Regulation"; namely, Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001. These lay down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, as amended from time to time and as read with relevant Commission decisions.
	Livestock farmers do therefore need to be aware of the requirements imposed upon them by this EU Regulation to ensure that they comply with the law. However, Defra provides guidance on these requirements both via its website and directly. For example, we recently wrote to all cattle keepers in England to explain the new requirements for testing fallen cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and to remind them that it is a notifiable disease.
	We also aim to ensure that enforcement action is proportionate and risk-based in line with our enforcement policy statement (PB 12963) which is available on the Defra website.

Agriculture: BSE

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the requirement in clause 7 of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) (Regulations) 2008 (SI 2008/1881) that occupiers have to behave "in accordance with the requirements of the Community TSE Regulation and these Regulations" is a standard form of words used by departments in relation to the European Union or whether it is particular to this statutory instrument.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Community TSE Regulation contains legal requirements that are directly effective against those to whom they apply—they do not need UK legislation to give them force.
	The purpose of the TSE (England) Regulations 2008 is to introduce the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with those requirements; namely, to impose sanctions on those who fail to meet them. Since we cannot legislate domestically for something that already represents the law, the regulations use a form of words that avoids doing so by referring to the EU legislation that imposes the requirements. Similar wording is used in other statutory instruments that enforce directly applicable EU legislation.

Agriculture: BSE

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government why regulations 17 and 18 of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1881) state that anyone who "intentionally obstructs" an inspector will face a fine or prison for three months, while article 18(1) and (3) of the Sea Fishing (Recovery Measures) Order 2008 (SI 2008/2347) lays down that anyone who "assaults" or "intentionally obstructs" a British sea-fishery officer will face a fine not exceeding £50,000.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The sanctions referred to are those that apply on summary conviction for the offence in regulation 17 of intentionally obstructing an inspector. These sanctions, consisting of a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, have regard to the sanctions imposed on summary conviction for the similar offence of obstruction in Section 66 of the Animal Health Act 1981. These sanctions, imposed under Section 75 of the Animal Health Act, differ only in that the maximum term of imprisonment is six months, as opposed to three months. This is because the TSE (England) Regulations 2008 were made under the European Communities Act 1972 and are therefore subject to the restriction in Schedule 2 to that Act which limits the term of imprisonment which may be imposed on summary conviction for an offence created under the Act to three months.
	Sanctions imposed for fisheries offences do not include imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which binds the UK under international law.

Agriculture: Dairy Farms

Lord Dykes: To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to ensure that all dairy farmers in the United Kingdom allot a minimum of 610 mm of head space to each cow in their herds.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are no specific requirements in UK animal welfare legislation regarding head space for dairy cows in cubicles. However, Defra's Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Cattle, withwhich dairy farmers must by law be familiar, includes a section on cow cubicles. The code recommends that cubicles should be designed to enable cows to lie down and stand up easily without injuring themselves.

Agriculture: Dairy Farms

Lord Dykes: To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they will propose to ensure that dairy farmers make significant reductions in the carbon footprint of their herds over the medium term.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government have a number of strands of work that aim to foster reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the dairy sector and agriculture as a whole:
	We have worked collaboratively with the dairy supply chain to develop the Roadmap process to reduce the negative environmental impacts of liquid milk production and consumption in the UK. The Milk Roadmap, published in May 2008 includes a number of challenging targets for the entire sector to achieve. The Roadmap and targets will be reviewed regularly.We are looking to establish a cost-effective policy framework to reduce GHG emissions from the agriculture, forestry and land management sector and encourage practices that sequester carbon.We are working with the Rural Climate Change Forum and through the FarmingFutures project to raise awareness of climate change and to help ensure that farmers and land managers have the information and advice they need to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to the effects of a changing climate.We are working to drive faster growth in the uptake of anaerobic digestion. We are also working to influence international policy and organisations and to learn from the experience of other countries.Our agriculture and climate change workstream is supported by a strong programme of research which is developing options for GHG mitigation from agriculture including emissions from the diary sector.In partnership with the Carbon Trust and British Standards, we have developed a publicly available specification (PAS) for assessing the lifecycle GHG emissions of goods and services to enable those in the food supply chain who wish to do so to measure the embedded GHG in their products, and identify where reductions can be made.

Animal Welfare: Wild Birds

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government why, in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedule 4) (England) Order 2008 (SI 2008/2356), they have reduced from 50 to nine the number of species of wild birds that, if kept in captivity, have to be registered and ringed; and what controls now exist on persons keeping wild birds in captivity.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In 2006 Defra held a public consultation on the bird registration scheme (Schedule 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) to investigate the regulatory burden the scheme places on bird keepers. The key motivation behind the review was to ensure that the scheme was targeted at those species most at risk and to reduce the bureaucracy and costs placed on legitimate keepers and traders of birds.
	Species of wild birds that are listed in Schedule 4 may be kept in captivity only if specimens are certified by a vet as being unfit to return to the wild. Presently and historically, the majority of Schedule 4 birds kept in captivity are captive bred and very few birds registered have been wild taken.
	The reverse burden of proof contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 means that it is an offence to possess a wild bird unless a person can show that it was legally acquired.

Bailiffs

Lord Morris of Manchester: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the answers by Lord Bach on 21 January (Official Report, House of Lords, cols. 1670—72), whether the draft bailiff regulations will include provision specifically protecting vulnerable and impoverished debtors and, if not, whether they will as a priority include such provisions.

Lord Bach: Powers contained within Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allow regulations to make further provisions about taking control of goods which could encompass vulnerability and impoverishment.
	However, vulnerability and impoverishment are difficult to define and occur across a wide spectrum. The regulations will seek to ensure that nobody suffers disproportionate enforcement and this will include the vulnerable and impoverished.
	Furthermore, it is intended that a major consultation exercise will be undertaken that will include a consultation paper setting out the draft regulations.

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

Lord Patel of Blackburn: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL] will redress any racially discriminatory impacts of United Kingdom nationality law arising from the distinction between British citizens and other categories of British national with more limited rights of entry to the United Kingdom.

Lord West of Spithead: We are not proposing to make any changes in relation to the status of British nationals within the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill. We have already made provision for those holding other forms of British nationality to register as British citizens. If a person lives in the United Kingdom for a period of five years, and meets certain residence requirements, he or she can apply for registration under Section 4(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Since April 2003, British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons have been able to apply for registration under Section 4B of that Act if they do not have any other nationality. The British Nationality Hong Kong Act 1997 also provides for the registration of those who would otherwise be stateless and are ordinarily resident in Hong Kong.
	In his citizenship review Lord Goldsmith noted that there are particular legal reasons why we need to retain the category of British National (Overseas) with links to Hong Kong, because of our treaty commitments. He also acknowledged that the status of British overseas territories citizen needs to continue in order to recognise connections to a particular overseas territory as well as to Britain. He therefore proposed a change to end the separate statuses of British overseas citizen, British subject and British protected person.
	We are of the view, however, that any changes to the status of those in these three groups at this time would still leave complications in the overall nationality framework, and that our earlier reforms and the passage of time will have the combined effect of reducing any current anomalies.

Burma

Baroness Cox: To ask Her Majesty's Government what use has been made of the £600,000 made available by the Department for International Development for food aid for the relief of famine in Chin state, Burma, in the light of recent reports that the majority of people in the affected areas have received no food.

Lord Tunnicliffe: DFID's grant of £600,000 for people affected by food shortages in Chin State is being used by two United Nations agencies and their partners as follows:
	The United Nations Development Programme is giving funds to 85 villages in the worst affected areas in southern Chin state to provide food.The World Food Programme, alongside three non-governmental organisations working in Chin state, is providing a mixture of food and cash for work in 54 villages.
	DFID has asked both agencies to investigate reports from Chin organisations that some villages are not being reached by this aid.

Burma

Baroness Cox: To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they are making to the United Nations Development Programme and the World Food Programme to provide help with logistical support, including helicopter food drops, bulldozers for road access and equipment to clear rivers for boat transport to accelerate delivery of food to people suffering from famine in Chin state, Burma.

Lord Tunnicliffe: The Department for International Development (DFID) regularly discusses with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Food Programme (WFP) their logistic arrangements for delivering food to people who need it in Chin state.
	WFP's view has been that the use of helicopters would not be the most appropriate means of delivering food in the context of Chin state. We will, however, encourage WFP to keep the situation under review and to discuss with the Burmese authorities whether helicopters could be used effectively.
	The provision of bulldozers or other equipment to improve roads and clear rivers would not be consistent with the EU common position on Burma.

Case Resolution Directorate

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of the backlog of an estimated 450,000 older cases in the Case Resolution Directorate are thought to be refused asylum seekers.

Lord West of Spithead: We do not hold this information. To obtain this information would entail significant new work which would involve disproportionate cost.

Child Protection: Witchcraft

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the extent of child abuse related to accusations of possession or witchcraft.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The Department for Education and Skills commissioned research in 2005 looking at the extent, nature and geographical spread of child abuse linked to accusations of "possession" or "witchcraft". This research, published in June 2006, analysed 38 cases involving 47 children, reported between 2000 and 2005. In light of this research, guidance on "Safeguarding Children from Abuse Linked to a Belief in Spirit Possession" was published in May 2007.

Childcare: Grandparents

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) grandmothers, and (b) grandfathers regularly provide informal childcare thereby enabling parents to sustain paid employment; and what are the ethnic backgrounds of those grandparents; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) grandmothers, and (b) grandfathers regularly provide informal childcare for at least 20 hours per week, thereby enabling parents to both to sustain paid work and to pay their own national insurance; and what are the ethnic backgrounds of those grandparents; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) grandmothers, and (b) grandfathers regularly provide informal childcare for at least 20 hours per week are below state retirement age; and what are the ethnic backgrounds of those grandparents; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) grandmothers, and (b) grandfathers regularly provide informal childcare for at least 20 hours per week are below state retirement age and not accruing their own basic state pension; and what are the ethnic backgrounds of those grandparents.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: Data are not collected centrally on the number or characteristics of grandparents providing informal childcare. Information is not collect centrally on the gender, ethnicity, age, employment status or pension contributions of grandparents providing informal childcare.
	The Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents collects information from parents on the types of childcare that families had used, including informal provision such as childcare by grandparents. The 2007 survey estimated that 25 per cent of families had used grandparents to provide childcare in the week before the survey. This equates to approximately 1.3 million families.
	The Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents asks parents about their use of childcare in the week before the survey interview. Information on hours of childcare used is not available in the form requested. It is not possible to determine from the available data whether the provision of grandparental childcare takes place regularly and whether it is used to enable families to sustain paid work and make national insurance contributions.

Childcare: Grandparents

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) lone parent families, and (b) partnered parent families are enabled to sustain paid work by the regular provision of grandparental childcare; and what are the ethnic backgrounds of those lone parents and partnered parents; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) lone parent families, and (b) partnered parent families are enabled to sustain paid work and pay their own national insurance by the regular provision of grandparental childcare for at least 20 hours per week; and what are the ethnic backgrounds of those lone parents and partnered parents; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) lone parent families, and (b) partnered parent families, are enabled to sustain paid work and pay their own national insurance by the regular provision of grandparental childcare of at least 20 hours per week from grandparents who are not accruing their own basic state pension; and whether they will specify the ethnic backgrounds of those lone parents and partnered parents; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) lone parent families, and (b) partnered parent families, are enabled to sustain paid work and pay their own national insurance by the regular provision of grandparental childcare of at least 20 hours per week by grandparents who are not accruing their own basic state pension and who are below state retirement age; and whether they will specify the ethnic backgrounds of those lone parents and partnered parents.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents collects information on the types of childcare that families had used, including informal provision such as childcare by grandparents. The 2007 survey estimated that 25 per cent of couple families and 24 per cent of lone parent families had used grandparents to provide childcare in the week before the survey.
	Table 1 below shows the percentage of couples and lone parent families who had used grandparents to provide childcare by the ethnicity of the respondent to the 2007 survey.
	
		
			 Table 1: Percentage of families using grandparents to provide childcare in the last week, by family type and ethnicit1 
			  Couples Lone parent All families 
			 White 27 26 27 
			 Black 5 8 7 
			 Asian 15 19 15 
			 Mixed race and other ethnic groups 13 19 15 
			 All families 25 24 25 
		
	
	The Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents asks parents about their use of childcare in the week before the survey interview. Information on hours of childcare used is not available in the form requested. It is not possible to determine from the available data whether the provision of grandparental childcare takes place regularly and whether it is used to enable families to sustain paid work and make national insurance contributions.
	The survey does not collect information on the age, employment status or pension contributions of grandparents providing informal childcare and this information is not collected centrally.

Childcare: Grandparents

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: To ask Her Majesty's Government what would be the estimated cost of allowing the transfer of the carer's credit under section 3 of the Pensions Act 2007 from the parent drawing the child benefit to the grandparent, where the grandparent is providing regular childcare of at least 20 hours per week, thereby enabling the parent to sustain paid work and to pay her own national insurance, but where the grandparent is not paying her own national insurance and is below state retirement age, assuming (a) 100 per cent take-up by grandparents, and (b) 15 per cent take-up by grandparents, at (1) 2010, (2) 2020, (3) 2030, and (4) 2050.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: Data are not collected centrally on the number or characteristics of grandparents providing informal childcare, therefore it is not possible to estimate this cost.

Children: Care

Lord Hanningfield: To ask Her Majesty's Government what legislation they have introduced in relation to children's social care since 1997.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The Government have introduced the following Acts which have impacted on children's social care services since 1997: Health Act 1999; Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000; Care Standards Act 2000; Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000; Health and Social Care Act 2001; Adoption and Children Act 2002; Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003; Children Act 2004; Children and Adoption Act 2006; Education and Inspections Act 2006; NHS Act 2006; Mental Health Act 2007; Children and Young Persons Act 2008.

Climate Change: Population

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the role of population control in tackling climate change; and how that informs their policy on climate change.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: According to the United Nations Population Fund, world population is increasing year on year. I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given to him on 2 June 2008 which stated that the Government's position on world population is detailed in the Department for International Development's policy paper on sexual and reproductive health and rights, which is available online.

Council Tax

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government what definition of religion is used for the purposes of a class H council tax exemption; and which faiths and denominations are eligible for class H council tax exemption.

Baroness Andrews: The term "religious denomination", which is used in Class H of Article 3 of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 (SI 1992/558) (the 1992 Order), is not defined in either the 1992 order or the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It is for local authorities to reach a view on whether Class H exemption applies in any particular case and for the courts to interpret the meaning of the term in the context of any cases which may come before them.

Courts: Surcharges

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: To ask Her Majesty's Government for how long they intend magistrates' courts to collect £15 surcharges for victims of crime; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of the proceeds from the £15 surcharge for victims of crime collected by magistrates' courts has been distributed to victims of crime; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how much has been collected from magistrates' courts under the £15 surcharge for victims of crime since the scheme began in April 2007.

Lord Bach: There are no plans to cease applying the victims surcharge to court fines.
	Since its introduction all of the proceeds from the surcharge have been ring-fenced and used to directly fund a range of organisations providing non-financial support to victims and witnesses of crime.
	The victims surcharge has been levied on fines at a rate of £15 since April 2007. The following table assigns victims surcharge receipts for April 2007 to March 2008, the first year of operation of the surcharge, as closely as possible to Government office regions.
	
		
			 Victims surcharge receipts 2007-08  
			 London 549,063 
			 East and West Midlands 731,775 
			 Yorkshire, Humberside and North East 608.095 
			 North West 510,103 
			 South East and East 730,606 
			 South West 410,656 
			 Wales 242,893

Criminal Justice System: Men

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Statement by Lord Bach on 3 February (WS 45), whether they plan to divert vulnerable men as well as vulnerable women, who are not dangerous offenders, from custody.

Lord Bach: The Government have asked Lord Bradley to undertake a review of diversion for offenders with mental health problems or learning disabilities, which includes men, women and children. Lord Bradley is due to report his findings to Government later this month.
	On 5 December 2007, the Secretary of State for Justice announced the Government's intention to develop a number of intensive alternative to custody demonstrator projects. These aim to encourage diversion from custody by enhancing the supervision that offenders receive on community sentences while building sentencer confidence in their effectiveness. The projects are designed to use current legislation to maximise the use of the community order in those cases where the court may be considering custody but where the National Probation Service believes a community sentence may be more effective in reducing reoffending.
	The projects seek to develop learning and improve practice in the application of intensive community sentences as an alternative to short-term custody. There are seven projects across the country. The Derbyshire project started in March 2008; West Yorkshire in August; South Wales and Dyfed-Powys in September. The remaining three (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, and Humberside) are scheduled to begin in April 2009.

Department for Communities and Local Government: Meeting

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government who attended the meeting hosted by the Department for Communities and Local Government at the Victoria Park Hotel in London that was the subject of a Daily Mail report on 19 April 2008; and whether they will place a copy of the minutes of the meeting in the Library of the House.

Baroness Andrews: On 16 October 2006, the former Secretary of State for Communities, Ruth Kelly, attended a meeting entitled "Working together to tackle extremism" with representatives from local authorities, the government offices for the regions, and the police. The issues discussed in the meeting included: building capacity at the local level to prevent violent extremism; information sharing and sharing good practice; engaging young people on the agenda; supporting community leadership; tackling inequalities and promoting cohesion. This was a public event so no formal minutes were taken.

Disabled People: UN Convention

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Statement by Lord McKenzie of Luton on 3 February (WS 47), what are the reasons and the evidential basis for their decision to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the light of their decision not to sign the First Optional Protocol to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The decision to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was reached in the light of our work towards ratification of the convention itself, and the outcome of the independent review into the UK's experience of ratifying the similar Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. In response to that review, the Government said that they would consider the merits of signing any other individual complaints mechanisms on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the Disability Convention, while disabled people already have access to various domestic mechanisms for enforcing their rights, we considered that signing the Optional Protocol would underline the messages in the convention about respect for the human rights of disabled people. Signature of the Optional Protocol to the Disability Convention does not set a precedent for acceding to other complaints mechanisms which will continue to be considered on a case by case basis.

Disabled People: UN Convention

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consult Parliament on their proposals to make reservations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Prior to ratification the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper. The accompanying Explanatory Memorandum will include information on the prospective reservations. In accordance with the Ponsonby rule, either House may call for a debate.

Discrimination

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 28 January (WA 58), whether, having regard to the existing domestic remedies for sex discrimination under United Kingdom domestic law, they consider it likely that significant use will be made of the rights of individual petition under the Optional Protocol to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in United Kingdom cases.

Lord Bach: The recent review of the Operational Protocol to the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women found that the protocol has not yet provided women in the UK with real benefits. As the Justice Minister, the right honourable Michael Wills, explained (col. 11WS, 4 December 2008): we will need further evidence, over a longer period, to establish what the practical benefits are. The Government do not consider that there is any merit in speculating now on what the future use might be made of the rights of individual petition.

Endangered Species

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the proposal to clone endangered species in order to preserve the species for future generations; and what steps they are taking to discourage the destruction of the habitats of endangered species.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Creating clones by nuclear transfer is regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The use of endangered species listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) is generally prohibited under the 1986 Act, but an exemption may be granted for research aimed at the preservation of the species in question.
	The Government are fully committed to the protection of habitats of endangered species. This is achieved through implementation of the relevant European directives and other international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and Ramsar Convention, the domestic programme of notifying important habitats as sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and through the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
	SSSIs conserve and protect the best of England's wildlife, geological and physiographical heritage. The Government's overall objective is for SSSIs to be appropriately and, where necessary, positively managed for the benefit of their nature conservation interests. We are committed to our public service agreement target that 95 per cent of the area of SSSIs in England should be in favourable or recovering condition by December 2010 and are working in partnership with all those on whose actions achievement of the target depends.
	The Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which is currently before this House, provides for the designation and protection of a new type of marine protected area—marine conservation zones. This will help the UK to meet our commitment to establish an ecologically coherent and well-managed network of marine protected areas by 2012.

Energy: Biofuels

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following an error in the definition of "relevant fossil fuel" in the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Regulations, (a) it will be obvious should an oil company use the error to avoid this year's renewable obligation; (b) current legislation will provide access to oil company data necessary to determine whether this year's obligation has been avoided; (c) any avoidance by oil companies operating in the United Kingdom but with overseas Head Offices will be measurable; and (d) whether the Government intends to measure the degree of such avoidance by oil companies operating in the United Kingdom.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they will take to assist small United Kingdom-based biofuel producers whose market has contracted this year due to an error in the definition of "relevant fossil fuel" in the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Regulations.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of an error in the definition of "relevant fossil fuel" in the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Regulations, the 2008—09 target for biofuel use in road transport will be attained; and what the target will be for 2009—10.

Lord Adonis: The discrepancy concerning the definition of relevant hydrocarbon oil in the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (RTFO) Order 2007 (No. 3072) means that any fossil fuel which is blended with renewable fuel before the excise duty point is excluded from the calculation of a supplier's obligation. The result is that less fossil fuel than was intended is taken into account in calculating suppliers' obligations, and therefore less renewable fuel is required to be supplied than was intended.
	Fossil fuel that is supplied to the consumer separately from biodiesel or bioethanol or is blended after it passes the duty point will be taken into account in calculating a supplier's obligation. It will be a matter for obligated suppliers to determine how they supply their fuels and meet their obligation under the RTFO scheme for the year 2008-09.
	Any supplier of fossil fuel in the UK is subject to the obligation regardless of whether its Head Office is located within or outside the UK. A supplier can meet its obligation in three ways: through supplying biofuel; purchasing certificates from other suppliers of biofuel; or by buying out of its obligation. The 2007 RTFO order provides for the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA) to require suppliers to report volumes of fossil and biofuel supplied and this information will be used to determine a supplier's obligation and if it has been met. Provisions in the Climate Change Act 2008 provide for information to be supplied to the RFA by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to verify these reports. Information about how suppliers have complied with their obligation will be made available in the RFA's reports to Government and Parliament.
	The full effect of the discrepancy on the volume of biofuel supplied in the first obligation year (2008-09) will not be known until after the end of the obligation year. Following a consultation, on 28 January the Government announced our intention to introduce legislation to slow down the rate at which the obligation increases until 2013-14. A draft order was laid in Parliament on 9 February to amend the obligation levels specified in the 2007 Order and this sets a level of 3.25 per cent of total fuel supplied for 2009-10. We have proposed a higher level than the 3 per cent level proposed in the consultation and have taken into account concerns expressed by producers about the effects of the discrepancy on biofuel demand during the first obligation year as well as environmental concerns about biofuel levels.

Food: Pork and Bacon

Lord Hoyle: To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Home Office refuses to publish information on the proportion of British pork and bacon it purchases.

Lord West of Spithead: The Home Department, inclusive of its agencies, does not contract directly for food supplies but procures catering services through wider facilities management (FM) or operational service contractors. To obtain information on what proportion of pork and bacon the department purchased is British would incur disproportionate costs.
	When placing a contract with FM or operational services contractors, government guidance on sustainable food and farming is incorporated in appropriate terms and conditions with regards to the procurement of food. Purchasing policy is reviewed frequently to incorporate new policy initiatives.

Gaza

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to enable $93 million, currently held by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, to be spent on capital programmes and reconstruction in Gaza, as originally intended.

Lord Tunnicliffe: The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) reported prior to the recent conflict in Gaza that UNRWA infrastructure projects in Gaza valued at $93 million had been halted due to a lack of raw materials as a result of the closure of the border crossings.
	Following the conflict the immediate priority for the UK Government has been to press for full and unhindered access for humanitarian personnel and supplies. These supplies include materials essential for the repair of humanitarian infrastructure, such as water and sanitation facilities. This issue has been raised repeatedly with the Israeli authorities at the highest levels.
	The World Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and European Community (EC) will take the lead in co-ordinating international efforts on reconstruction. A needs assessment is planned which is expected to report in three months. The UK Government will work closely with international partners to ensure that the goods required for reconstruction are able to enter Gaza.

Gaza

Baroness Northover: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the access granted to humanitarian agencies in Gaza.

Lord Tunnicliffe: The recent hostilities brought about almost complete closure of the crossings into Gaza and made it very dangerous for aid staff to operate, and for aid recipients to access aid at distribution centres. The ceasefire and IDF withdrawal has improved access to the Gaza Strip and security within it for humanitarian agencies, but still not nearly enough humanitarian supplies are getting in. Humanitarian personnel are also facing ongoing difficulties entering Gaza.
	Formal reports from the UN will be key in outlining in detail the challenges it and other organisations face. The UK Government continue to raise concerns with the Government of Israel and other partners.

Government Departments: Data Protection

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue instructions to all departments to ensure full compliance with data protection principles and respect for private life, home and correspondence in the storage and use by departments of personal information, including appropriate safeguards and sanctions against misuse of such information.

Lord Patel of Bradford: I refer the noble Lord to the publication of the report into data handling procedures across government published on 25 June 2008 and the accompanying Written Ministerial Statement by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office (Official Report, cols. 25-6WS).Copies of the report are available in the Library.
	Departments are ultimately responsible for their own security arrangements but the data handling report (DHR) lays out a set of mandatory cross-government actions for government departments to protect personal information including:
	minimising access to data;
	encryption of removable media;
	penetration testing of ICT systems;
	secure disposal of information;
	greater scrutiny through such measures as spot checks by the Information Commissioner's office; and
	fostering a culture of individual accountability bolstered by training and education to ensure that staff understand their responsibilities.
	The Cabinet Office is monitoring departments' progress in meeting the DHR requirements and will report to Parliament in due course.
	In addition, the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 apply equally to government departments as well as to private bodies who process personal information in the UK.

Government Departments: Religions and Faiths

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government what religions and faiths are officially recognised by each government department.

Baroness Andrews: Her Majesty's Government have no policy of officially extending recognition to religions and faiths. Government departments routinely work with representatives of a wide range of religion or belief groups in delivering policies relevant to them, and with organisations representing those of no belief.

Government Departments: Religions and Faiths

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government what religious groups or affiliated organisations have received public funding from each government department in each of the past five years.

Baroness Andrews: A range of faith-based organisations have received public funding in each of these years, normally in the context of providing public services or advising Her Majesty's Government. Similarly, a number of bodies seeking to promote inter-faith activity and dialogue at national, regional and local level have received funding in this period. However, a comprehensive list of such bodies is not centrally held and could only be created at disproportionate cost.

Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 28 January (WA 58), whether there is a gap between the protection given by the general right to equality without discrimination by article 26 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the protection given in United Kingdom human rights and discrimination law; and, if so, what is the nature of that gap; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 28 January (WA 58), whether they have had regard to the way in which the United Nations Human Rights Committee has handled individual applications under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and, if so, what is their assessment of the substantive benefits to those who have had recourse to that mechanism.

Lord Bach: Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) differs from UK human rights and discrimination law both in nature and in scope. However in the Government's view this does not mean that in practice there is any gap in protection. In light of the protections in domestic law that I outlined in my previous Answer (col. WA 58, 28 January 2009), the mechanisms that already exist in international law for regular periodic examination of the UK's compliance with the ICCPR, and the findings of the review of our experience of individual petition under the Optional Protocol to the Convention for the Elimination of All Form of Discrimination Against Women—CEDAW (col. 11WS, 4 December 2008), the Government do not consider there is sufficient evidence that additional practical benefit would be provided by accepting the right of individual petition in respect of complaints under the ICCPR.
	The Government do not consider it necessary to undertake a further evaluation in respect of the handling of individual petitions by the UN Human Rights Committee because of the nature of the UN monitoring committee processes (that they cannot, for example, give legal rulings) and because of the conclusions of the review on the CEDAW experiment.

Immigration

Lord Avebury: To ask Her Majesty's Government why leave to enter the United Kingdom has not been granted to Mrs HY, who won an appeal against refusal of her application to enter the United Kingdom as the spouse of a United Kingdom citizen on 28 October (ref OA/30697/2008).

Lord West of Spithead: Information contained in applications to the Home Office is treated as being confidential and is not normally disclosed to third parties, unless they are authorised representatives of the applicant.

Immigration

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many immigration and asylum detainees have been (a) released, and (b) deported, in each of the current and previous two years; and what were the reasons for releasing detainees.

Lord West of Spithead: Information on the total number of detainees released from the immigration estate is not held centrally and would be available only through the detailed examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.
	In 2007, a total of 16,120 persons were recorded as being removed from the UK on leaving detention, held solely under Immigration Act powers; of these, 7,355 were recorded as having sought asylum at some stage. These 16,120 form 25 per cent of the total of 63,365 persons removed (including voluntary departures) from the UK in 2007, and of these, 13,705 were recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.
	Between January and September 2008 inclusive, there were a total of 12,075 such persons recorded as being removed upon leaving detention, and of these, 5,330 had sought asylum at some stage. These 12,075 form 24 per cent of the total of 49,750 persons removed (including voluntary departures) from the UK between January and September 2008, and of these, 9,070 were recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.
	All figures are rounded to the nearest five and are provisional. These are the latest periods for which published information is available.
	In addition to being removed from the UK, upon leaving detention people can also be granted leave to enter/remain, granted temporary admission/release or bailed.
	National statistics on persons recorded as being removed from the UK on leaving detention solely under Immigration Act powers are published in Chapter nine of each year's Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom bulletin. Provisional figures relating to the fourth quarter of 2008 will be published in Table eight of the Control of Immigration: Quarterly Statistical Summary, United Kingdom - Q4 2008 bulletin on 24 February 2009. Copies of these publications are/will be available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics website at: http://www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats. html

Immigration

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the granting of refugee status by the Home Office to an individual whose case had been selected as a country guidance case by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal can be considered to be an indication of Government guidance or policy for future cases of a similar nature.

Lord West of Spithead: No. Government guidance and policy are continually updated to reflect changes in country conditions, case law or policy, but it should not be assumed that the granting of asylum in a particular case selected as country guidance signals a change in policy. For example, new information that comes to light as the parties prepare a case for an appeal may lead to a different decision in that particular case which is consistent with the existing policy.

Immigration

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria are used by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in selecting a country guidance case.

Lord Bach: Potential country guidance (CG) cases are identified by senior members of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's (AIT) judiciary and referred to the AIT Reporting Committee, which comprises senior members of the judiciary, once the determination has been written and promulgated.
	The Reporting Committee makes the decision whether to approve a CG case. There is no specific set of criteria for that decision. Cases are reported if they are thought to give guidance that is usefully comprehensive, whatever the outcome of the appeal.

Immigration: Detention

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many persons are in immigration or asylum detention; and how many have been in detention for (a) under six months; (b) six months to one year; (c) one year to 18 months; (d) 18 months to two years; (e) two to three years; and (f) over three years.

Lord West of Spithead: As at 27 September 2008, a total of 2,415 persons were recorded as being detained within the UK Border Agency detention estate solely under Immigration Act powers; of these, 1,690 had sought asylum at some stage. These figures are rounded to the nearest five. This is the latest date for which published statistics are available.
	Information on how long these individuals have been detained for is not held centrally and would be available only through the detailed examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.
	Statistics on all persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers by length of detention are not available after September 2006. Information up to that date for each year is available from the Library of the House and in Table 9.4 of each year's Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom publication from the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html.
	A robust new method for calculating the length of time detainees are held solely under Immigration Act powers is currently being formulated. This is currently undergoing quality assurance before the statistics can be published on a regular basis.

Immigration: Removal

Lord Avebury: To ask Her Majesty's Government why removal directions do not routinely state the date, time and route of the proposed removal, and port to which the removal is proposed; and what proportion of current removal directions are open-ended.

Lord West of Spithead: Individuals to be removed from the UK must be served with a form known as an IS151D which routinely requires inclusion of the following information—name of individual being removed; flight/ship number; name of the country to where the individual is being removed; time of flight; and date of flight. It also requires the content of the form to be explained to the individual in English or a language they understand and that the service of the form is not an appealable decision. The UK Border Agency does not set "open-ended" removal directions.
	The policy and guidance on removal directions is set out in chapters 48 and 60 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance Manual, which is available to view at the following website: www.ukba.homeoffice. gov.uk/policyandlaw/guidance/enforcement/

International Development

The Earl of Sandwich: To ask Her Majesty's Government how they will use the United Kingdom's international development budget to offset the falls in capital flows to the poorest developing countries during the current economic crisis.

Lord Tunnicliffe: The current global economic and financial crisis will negatively affect capital flows to developing countries. Recent papers published by the World Bank and others estimate capital inflows at $466 billion in 2008, compared to $564 billion in 2006 and $929 billion in 2007. Recent forecasts from international institutions and credible experts such as the Institute for International Finance suggest that capital flows could fall to around $165 billion in 2009.
	In response, DFID is working with its partner countries and international institutions:
	a. to uphold its ODA commitments to keep the UK on track to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on ODA by 2013;b. to maintain the focus of its bilateral programmes (in 2007/08, our country specific bilateral aid was £2183 million of which £1920 million went to low income countries);c. to ensure a robust multilateral response to support less developed countries, including through the countercyclical response of international finance institutions - such as increasing World Bank lending threefold, accelerating disbursements from the International Development Association (IDA) and International Finance Corporation (IFC) facilities that aim to mobilise close to $30 billion—and by exploring the option of a "vulnerability fund" to support developing economies;d. to work on remittances to ensure that flows remain efficient, cost-effective and transparent; ande. to maintain a substantial investment climate reform programme to help improve the environment for both foreign and domestic investment flows.

Internet: BT and Phorm

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the subject matter and content of the communications from a company representative of BT, Phorm or 121 Media to a Home Office official on (a) 15 November 2006 at 1.19 pm; (b) 23 January 2007 at 5.58 pm; and (c) 16 August 2007 at 12.59pm; and what response was given to those communications; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the subject matter and content of the communications from counsel for BT, Phorm or 121 Media to a Home Office official on (a) 9 July 2007 at 2.32pm; and (b) 14 August 2007 at 4.46pm; and what response was given to those communications; and
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the purpose and agendas of meetings between Phorm and the Home Office on 4 and 8 February 2008; who attended those meetings; and whether they will release minutes of the meetings.

Lord West of Spithead: These communications were seeking a view from the Home Office on the application of Part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in relation to proposals for the provision of targeted online advertising services.
	The Home Office provided an informal written view on targeted online advertising in February 2008. Only one meeting has taken place between Phorm and the Home Office and I refer the noble Baroness to the answer I gave on 29 September 2008 for the details.

Iraq

The Earl of Sandwich: To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in protecting the rights and meeting the humanitarian needs of Assyrian Christians in Iraq.

Lord Tunnicliffe: We are concerned that some people in Iraq, including the Assyrian Christians, may be vulnerable due to their ethnic or religious affiliation. However, it is not the UK's policy to limit assistance to particular religious groups. Rather, we channel our assistance through established international organisations, notably the United Nations, with a mandate to assist all vulnerable people.
	The Department for International Development (DFID) has provided over £170 million in humanitarian assistance to international agencies working in Iraq and the region since 2003. This funding has provided immediate assistance such as food, shelter and medical supplies to those most in need. It is also helping to create the conditions to allow displaced people to return to their homes in Iraq.

Marine and Fisheries Agency: Inspections

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government further, to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 28 January (WA 51), whether, in view of 0.876 per cent of inspections on land resulting in the discovery of an infringement compared with 7.69 per cent of inspections at sea, there will be a switch from land-based to sea-based inspections by the Marines and Fisheries Agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are no current plans to switch Marine and Fisheries Agency resources from land-based to sea-based inspections. Monitoring compliance with fisheries legislation requires a complex mix of enforcement tools, including land-based and at-sea inspections as well as aerial surveillance, satellite monitoring (vessel monitoring systems), other intelligence-gathering methods and data analysis. Deployment of these tools is carried out using intelligence-based risk assessment techniques and is kept under constant review to ensure that they are used in the most effective manner.

Nitrate Pollution

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the requirement in regulation 18(4), Risk maps, of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/2349) that "the occupier must keep a copy" implies that the original goes elsewhere; and, if so, when; to whom; and under which regulation.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Regulation 18(4) of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2008 is not intended to imply that the "copy" in question is of an "original". For operational reasons, an occupier may well have several copies of the risk map. The purpose of Regulation 18(4) is to require the occupier to have a copy of the risk map available for inspection for compliance-checking purposes.

Passports

Lord Marlesford: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many United Kingdom passports were returned to the Identity and Passport Service in 2008 on the death of the holder.

Lord West of Spithead: The Identity and Passport Service does not routinely collect data on the volume of passports returned upon the death of the holder.

Passports

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many British passports have been issued by the Belfast Passport Office in each of the past five calendar years.

Lord West of Spithead: The numbers of passports issued from the Belfast office over the last five complete calendar years are shown below:
	
		
			 2008 348,900 
			 2007 380,455 
			 2006 354,688 
			 2005 361,099 
			 2004 296,601

Passports

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their reasons for not putting the criteria for the withdrawal of passports from British citizens on a statutory basis.

Lord West of Spithead: In the White Paper The Governance of Britain—Constitutional Renewal (March 2008) and in the report Governance of Britain: One Year On (July 2008), the Government confirmed their intention to introduce comprehensive legislation on the procedures for issuing passports in place of the royal prerogative and this would cover the criteria for withdrawal of passports from British citizens.. A timetable for publishing draft legislation will be announced in due course.

Places of Religious Worship

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government which faith and denominations are recognised as religions for the purposes of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855.

Lord West of Spithead: The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 provides for places of meeting for religious worship to be certified to the Registrar General, but does not apply to the established church. When considering the registration of a building which has been certified as a place of religious worship, the Registrar General applies the judgment by the Court of Appeal in the Segerdal case.
	The main finding in the judgment is that the words "place of meeting for religious worship" in the Act connote a place of which the principal use is for people to come together as a congregation to worship God or do reverence to a deity. Apart from the Church of England and the Church in Wales, any faith or denomination which meets these criteria would be capable of recognition under the 1855 Act.

Police: Associations

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on 26 January (WA 19), why the National Association of Muslim Police is the only religious group to receive grant in aid; what is its purpose; what is the total amount of grant since its inception; and how often the need to continue any grant is reviewed.

Lord West of Spithead: Any of the national diversity staff associations in the police service can seek grant in aid funding from the Home Office. The only national faith-based staff association to apply for funding in 2008-09 was the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP).
	NAMP exists to increase the trust and confidence of police amongst Muslim communities and increase the recruitment, retention, and progression of Muslim officers and staff.
	The total amount of grant in aid paid to NAMP since its inception is £33,750.
	Grant in aid is reviewed annually and approval follows submission of a formal annual bid. Payments from the annual approved amount are reviewed each quarter.

Police: Associations

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on 26 January (WA 19), what is the total amount of grant in aid paid to the British Association for Women in Policing since its inception; and whether and how often the grant is reviewed to determine whether it is still necessary.

Lord West of Spithead: The total grant in aid paid to BAWP is:
	
		
			 2008-09 £100,000.00 
			 2007-08 £ 100,000.00 
			 2006-07 £100,000.00 
			 2005-06 £77,290.00 
			 2004-05 £80,070.00 
			 2003-04 £78,500.00 
			 2002-03 £60,500.00 
			 2001-02 £35,000.00 
			 2000-01 £30,000.00 
		
	
	Grant in aid is reviewed annually and approval follows submission of a formal annual bid and financial accounts. Payments made from the approved annual amount are reviewed on a quarterly basis.

Police: Associations

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 4 June 2007 (WA 171), what was the outcome of their discussions with the National Black Police Association concerning the recommendations of the Home Office Auditor's final report on funding for the Association; whether funding has been resumed; and, if so, what is the amount of current funding.

Lord West of Spithead: Funding was stopped from April 2008 and no funding is currently provided to NBPA. This followed the NBPA's own auditor disclaiming its 2006-07 accounts.
	The Home Office audit report led to an IPCC investigation that recently concluded (5 February 2009).
	The Home Office will review the position with regards to funding the NBPA after it has had an opportunity to review the IPCC and other relevant reports.
	Considerations will include successful implementation of the recommendations of the Home Office auditor, and the submission of satisfactory financial accounts showing a satisfactory financial position.

Prisoners: Ex-service Personnel

Lord Dubs: To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to publish the preliminary findings of their research on ex-service personnel in prison.

Lord Bach: We aim to have initial findings on the proportion of veterans among the prison population and their spread across establishments in England and Wales later this year. Research would follow this on the nature of veterans offending and the factors that might have contributed.

Prisons: Extremism

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government what training and awareness programmes have been provided to staff at prisons in England and Wales aimed at preventing violent extremism and radicalisation.

Lord Bach: The National Offender Management Service is delivering a programme of work to address the risks associated with violent extremism and radicalisation in prisons including improved intelligence gathering; training and awareness-raising for staff; support for chaplaincy teams; and work to research and develop appropriate interventions. Within this programme a series of briefings, written materials and events have been delivered. Work is currently taking place to determine the future training needs.

Prisons: Extremism

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government (a) how much money has been spent in each of the last five years on programmes in prisons in England and Wales aimed at preventing violent extremism and radicalisation taking place; and (b) whether they will place copies of relevant training manuals in the Library of the House.

Lord Bach: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) spends significant sums of money in delivering its responsibilities of protecting the public and reducing reoffending. In addition to the ongoing costs involved in holding terrorist prisoners securely and running effective regimes, NOMS is taking forward a multi-disciplinary programme of work funded by the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT). Over the last three years OSCT has provided the following: 2005-06 £65,463, 2006-07 £140,535 and 2007-08 £822,542. Funding of £2.7 million has been allocated by OSCT for 2008 09.
	As part of this programme, a variety of briefings to staff have been provided. However, operational security considerations mean that I am unable to place copies of the supporting materials used in the Library of the House.

Prisons: Muslim Chaplains

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Muslim chaplains are currently serving in prisons in England and Wales; which prisons they are at; and what is the total number of Muslim chaplains serving in each prison for the past five years.

Lord Bach: There are currently 197 Muslim Chaplains serving in prisons in England and Wales. The number of Muslim Chaplains currently serving at each prison is set out in the table below. These figures will include Chaplains appointed on an employed (full time and part time) basis, and on a sessional basis (some sessional Chaplains work for only a few hours each week). Information on the number of Muslim Chaplains serving in each prison for the last five years is not collected centrally or locally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
	
		
			 Prison establishment Number of Muslim Chaplains 
			 Acklington 1 
			 Albany 1 
			 Altcourse 1 
			 Ashfield 1 
			 Ashwell 1 
			 Askham Grange 1 
			 Aylesbury 1 
			 Bedford 2 
			 Belmarsh 3 
			 Birmingham 3 
			 Blakenhurst 2 
			 Blantyre House 1 
			 Blundeston 1 
			 Brinsford 2 
			 Bristol 2 
			 Brixton 4 
			 Brockhill 2 
			 Bronzefield 1 
			 Buckley Hall 2 
			 Bullingdon 2 
			 Bullwood Hall 1 
			 Camp Hill 1 
			 Canterbury 1 
			 Cardiff 1 
			 Castington 1 
			 Channings Wood Vacancy 
			 Chelmsford 2 
			 Coldingley 1 
			 Cookham wood 2 
			 Dartmoor 1 
			 Deerbolt 1 
			 Doncaster I 
			 Dorchester 1 
			 Dovegate 1 
			 Dover 2 
			 Downview I 
			 Drake Hall I 
			 Durham 2 
			 East Sutton Park 1 
			 Eastwood Park 1 
			 Edmunds Hill 1 
			 Elmley 1 
			 Erlestoke 1 
			 Everthorpe 1 
			 Exeter Vacancy 
			 Featherstone 1 
			 Feltham 6 
			 Ford 1 
			 Forest Bank 2 
			 Foston Hall 1 
			 Frankland 1 
			 Full Sutton 3 
			 Garth 1 
			 Gartree 1 
			 Glen Parva 1 
			 Gloucester 1 
			 Grendon/Springhill 1 
			 Guys Marsh 1 
			 Haslar 2 
			 Haverigg 1 
			 Hewell Grange 1 
			 High Down 1 
			 Highpoint 1 
			 Hindley 1 
			 Hollesley Bay 1 
			 Holloway 1 
			 Holme House 1 
			 Hull 1 
			 Huntercombe 2 
			 Kennet 1 
			 Kingston 1 
			 Kirkham 2 
			 Kirklevington Grange 1 
			 Lancaster Castle 1 
			 Lancaster Farms 1 
			 Latchmere House 1 
			 Leeds 3 
			 Leicester 1 
			 Lewes 2 
			 Leyhill 1 
			 Lincoln 1 
			 Lindholme 2 
			 Littlehey 1 
			 Liverpool 1 
			 Long Lartin 3 
			 Low Newton 1 
			 Lowdham Grange 2 
			 Maidstone 1 
			 Manchester 3 
			 Moorland Closed 1 
			 Moorland Open 1 
			 Morton Hall Vacancy 
			 New Hall 1 
			 North Sea Camp 1 
			 Northallerton 1 
			 Norwich 1 
			 Nottingham 1 
			 Onley 2 
			 Parc 1 
			 Parkhurst 1 
			 Pentonville 1 
			 Peterborough 1 
			 Portland 1 
			 Prescoed 1 
			 Preston 1 
			 Ranby 1 
			 Reading 1 
			 Risley 2 
			 Rochester 1 
			 Rye Hill 2 
			 Send 1 
			 Shepton Mallet Vacancy 
			 Shrewsbury 2 
			 Springhill 1 
			 Stafford 2 
			 Stanford Hill 1 
			 Stocken 1 
			 Stoke Heath 1 
			 Styal 2 
			 Sudbury 1 
			 Swaleside 2 
			 Swansea 1 
			 Swinfen Hall 2 
			 The Mount 2 
			 The Verne 1 
			 Thorn Cross 1 
			 Usk 1 
			 Wakefield 2 
			 Wandsworth 4 
			 Warren Hill 1 
			 Wayland 1 
			 Wealstun 1 
			 Wellingborough 1 
			 Werrington 1 
			 Wetherby 1 
			 Whatton 1 
			 Whitemoor 2 
			 Winchester Vacancy 
			 Wolds 2 
			 Woodhill 4 
			 Wormwood Scrubs 4 
			 Wymott 2

Prisons: Muslims

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government what programmes are in place in prisons in England and Wales to prevent Muslim prisoners being exposed to extremist (a) views, and (b) indoctrination.

Lord Bach: The National Offender Management Service is delivering a programme of work to address the risks associated with violent extremism and radicalisation in prisons including improved intelligence gathering; training and awareness-raising for staff, support for chaplaincy teams; and work to research and develop appropriate interventions. Within this programme a series of briefings, written materials and events have been delivered. Work is currently taking place to determine the future training needs.

Public Bodies

Lord Selsdon: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answers by Lord Williams of Mostyn on 18 October 2001 (WA 101) and Lord Davies of Oldham on 18 July 2007 (WA 28), which members of the House of Lords and which members of the House of Commons held appointments on 1 February 2009 to the boards of public bodies as set out in Annex A of the Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies 2008—Making government work better issued on 2 February 2009; what was the date of each appointment; what these appointments were; and what remuneration was paid in connection with each appointment.

Lord Patel of Bradford: This information is not held centrally. Information on board membership and remuneration is published in individual bodies' annual reports and accounts.

Public Bodies

Lord Selsdon: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the issue of the Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies 2008—Making government work better, which confirmed that the expenditure by Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) for the period April 2007 to March 2008 amounted to nearly £43 billion, what is their current estimate of expenditure by NDPBs for the period April 2008 to March 2009.

Lord Patel of Bradford: This information is not held centrally. Estimates of expenditure by NDPBs for the current financial year is a matter for individual departments. Information on total expenditure by executive NDPBs for 2008/09 will be published in due course in the Cabinet Office report Public Bodies 2009.

Railways: BR Residential Property

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government how much the British Rail Residual Property Board spent in each year since its formation on (a) repairs and maintenance to abandoned railway lines; and (b) repairs and maintenance to bridges over and under abandoned railway lines.

Lord Adonis: BRB (Residuary) does not record separate figures for expenditure on disused railway lines from the overall cost of maintaining land on the rest of its burdensome estate. Figures for maintaining burdensome land dating back to 2005-06 are available as follows:
	
		
			 2005/6 £994,000 
			 2006/7 £1,161,000 
			 2007/8 £1,018,000 
			 2008/9 £1,249,000 (forecast) 
		
	
	These figures account for removal of fly tipping, fencing, underground fires, etc.
	The historic cost of repairs and maintenance to bridges over and above disused railway lines, including all inspections, assessments, major and minor works and some transfers to third parties is as follows:
	
		
			 2001/2 £5.9 million 
			 2002/3 £5.0 million 
			 2003/4 £6.3 million 
			 2004/5 £5.9 million 
			 2005/6 £6.6 million 
			 2006/7 £7.0 million 
			 2007/8 £7.7 million 
			 2008/9 £8.3 million (forecast)

Railways: BR Residential Property

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government what length of abandoned railway line the British Rail Residual Property Board owned, and was responsible for the repairs and maintenance of, in each year since its formation.

Lord Adonis: BRB. (Residuary) Ltd does not record its land holdings by route mileage. The non-operational estate is recorded as a number of properties which includes buildings as well as land. There were 421 sites at the beginning of this financial year, of which the company anticipates selling 150 by March 2009.

Railways: BR Residential Property

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government how much the British Rail Residual Property Board spent in each year since its formation on (a) repairs and maintenance of the abandoned railway line between Colne and the former boundary between Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, and (b) repairs and maintenance to bridges over and under that line.

Lord Adonis: The only expenditure recorded for this route was the removal of a tree which had fallen through a fence. Compensation of £10,000 was paid to the adjoining landowner and the fence was repaired at a cost of £3000.
	Historic maintenance expenditure, including all inspections, major and minor works on the bridges over and under the route is as follows.
	
		
			 Year Inspection Costs Maintenance Costs Total 
			 2001/2 £617 £0 £617 
			 2002/3 £617 £5,555 £6,172 
			 2003/4 £617 £2,197 £2,81.4 
			 2004/5 £1,379 £1,500 £2,879 
			 2005/6 £636 £40,282 £40,918 
			 2006/7 £955 £0 £955 
			 2007/8 £5,086 £2,730 £7,816 
			 2008/9 £1,237 £730 £1,967

Registered Commons

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the seven authorities listed as Registration Authorities in Schedule 1 to the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1961) represent all areas in which registered Commons are to be found; whether they are the only local authorities that have expressed a wish to be registration authorities; and whether new registration authorities will be added to the list as and when they apply or only at fixed intervals.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Commons registration authorities are defined in section 4(1) of the Commons Act 2006. Part 1 of the 2006 Act came into force on 1 October 2008 in the seven commons registration authorities participating in a pilot scheme, that is the county councils of Cornwall, Devon, Hertfordshire, Kent and Lancashire, the County of Herefordshire district council, and Blackburn with Darwen borough council. These authorities were selected from those which volunteered to take part in the pilot scheme, as representative of those commons registration authorities in England as a whole which have registered land within their areas.
	Commons registration authorities were first designated under the Commons Registration Act 1965. There are 148 in England, of which approximately 116 have registered common land within their areas. We will review the pilot scheme in early 2010 before deciding whether to proceed with national implementation as planned, in regional tranches, from October 2010 onwards. On this basis, all commons registration authorities in England would implement Part 1 by October 2012.

Roads: Traffic Signs

Lord Lucas: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a traffic sign as defined in Sections 142 and 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 must be in compliance with Regulation 11 and Regulation 12 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and can only be used in such circumstances as directed by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Lord Adonis: Section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that a traffic sign may be specified by regulations or authorised by the Secretary of State. Regulations 11 and 12 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 identify the signs to which they apply. Regulations 11 and 12 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 do not apply where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character.
	Traffic signs should be used in accordance with the applicable directions given by the Secretary of State for Transport.
	It should be noted that only the Courts can provide a definitive interpretation of the law.

Roads: Traffic Signs

Lord Lucas: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether non-prescribed traffic signs authorised by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport may only be used in full compliance with the content of the authorisation documents; and whether any deviation from the constraints of that authorisation voids the permission thus binding the highway authority to the content of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and to the use of prescribed traffic signs.

Lord Adonis: Section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that a traffic sign may be authorised by the Secretary of State. An authorised traffic sign should be used in accordance with the applicable authorisation. It would be for the courts to determine the legal effect of any deviation.
	It should be noted that only the courts can provide a definitive interpretation of the law.

Roads: Traffic Signs

Lord Lucas: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders Procedure (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 binds an authority to the content of Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by the use of the term "traffic sign".

Lord Adonis: These questions appear to relate directly to issues that are currently before the Administrative Court. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to address them.

Roads: Traffic Signs

Lord Lucas: To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken to remove non-prescribed traffic signs that have not been authorised by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Lord Adonis: This Government have not exercised the power in Section 69(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 relating to the removal of signs by giving directions to a local traffic authority.

Schools: Performance Tables

Lord Lucas: To ask Her Majesty's Government why IGCSE examination results are not included in calculations of value added between key stage 4 and key stage 5 for the 2008 school performance tables.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: International GCSEs (iGCSEs) are designed primarily as qualifications for overseas candidates and have been taken up by some schools in the independent sector. iGCSEs are currently not accredited by Ofqual or approved for funding in respect of pupils in maintained schools in this country, and unlike ordinary GCSEs, are not aligned to the National Curriculum programmes of study. Since they have not been accredited, there is no regulatory mechanism to ensure comparability between GCSEs and iGCSEs. iGCSE results are therefore not collected by the department or included in the achievement and attainment tables.

Secondary Legislation

The Earl of Dundee: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to review obsolete secondary legislation.

Lord Bach: The Government have no specific plans to review obsolete secondary legislation.
	The Law Commission has a statutory duty to keep the law of England and Wales under review with a view to its systematic development and reform. This includes the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary legislation, including secondary legislation. However, the commission focuses its resources in this area of work on the repeal of obsolete primary legislation.
	Individual departments also keep secondary legislation for which they are responsible under regular review and will revoke previous instruments which have become obsolete when new secondary legislation is introduced. For example the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3538) completely revoked 26 instruments and 17 others insofar as they applied to England and Wales. If an enabling Act, or the enabling section of the Act, is repealed, instruments made under it will lapse unless they are saved. Secondary legislation may also become spent, either because it was expressed to have effect only for a limited period, or because it no longer has any effect. Many instruments therefore cease to have effect without the need for them to be specifically revoked.

Squirrels

Lord Fearn: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to eradicate the disease which is killing red squirrels in Formby on the north west coast.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Forestry Commission and Natural England are partners in the "Save our Squirrels" project that is working with local people and organisations in the Formby Red Squirrel Reserve and surrounding buffer zone to control grey squirrels, believed to be the source of the squirrelpox virus, and to remove diseased red squirrels in the hope of reducing the spread of the disease. The Forestry Commission has also entered into a Red Squirrel Woodland Improvement Grant agreement with woodland owners close to Formby to support the control of grey squirrels. Previous outbreaks in the squirrel reserve have not been sustained, but red squirrel populations have been impacted.
	Squirrelpox cannot be eradicated without first understanding how the disease is transmitted within and between grey and red squirrel populations. We will then be better informed about how to minimise risk of transmission and how vaccine might be targeted. The Scottish Government are funding a three year PhD study into how the squirrelpox virus is transmitted from greys to reds and investigating the possibilities of a vaccine. This study, which began in June 2007, is being undertaken at the Moredun Institute and is costing around £100,000 per annum for three years. Furthermore, the Wildlife Ark Trust has raised £250,000 of funding for the first stage of a programme which will last two years, to develop a squirrelpox vaccine for the red squirrel.

St Helena: Airport

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: To ask Her Majesty's Government how long the pause in negotiations over the project to build St Helena's airport will last; and whether they have arranged with the preferred bidder that their current proposals will remain on the table until negotiations resume.

Lord Brett: Negotiations have been paused to allow for further consideration of a number of financial and economic issues in the light of the changed economic climate. The Secretary of State will announce his decision when this work has been completed.
	The preferred bidder, Impregilo SpA, has decided to extend the validity of its current tender to 28 February 2009.

Sudan: Darfur

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Answer by Lord West of Spithead on 9 July 2008 (Official Report, House of Lords, col. 751) that the Government would defer enforcing the return of non-Arab Darfuri asylum seekers to Sudan pending the outcome of a country guidance case, whether they will continue to defer until a new country guidance case is selected and heard.

Lord West of Spithead: Alternative cases to consider the safety of return issue are currently being considered, and the adjourned hearing is expected to be relisted within the next few months. Returns of non-Arab Darfuris to Sudan will continue to be suspended pending the outcome of the case.

Telecommunications: Security

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice or opinions the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure issued to the Home Office, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and internet service providers regarding the trials of internet service provider-based behavioural targeting in 2006 and 2007.

Lord West of Spithead: No information has been provided by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure to the Home Office, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform or internet service providers in relation to ISP behavioural targeting.

Visas

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Iraqis applying to enter the United Kingdom have received visa refusals in each of the last three years; and how many of those came from (a) Syria, and (b) Jordan.

Lord West of Spithead: The information requested is given in the attached table.
	Visa Refusals: Iraqi Nationals, 2006-08
	
		
			 Year Global Syria Jordan 
			 2006 3,165 583 1,910 
			 2007 4,762 439 2,830 
			 2008 3,297 15 1,611 
		
	
	Source:Central Reference System, 23.1.09
	The data are unpublished and should be treated as provisional.

Visas

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many visa applications for entry to Britain are pending from (a) Syria, and (b) Jordan; and how many of those applicants are Iraqi citizens or stateless persons.

Lord West of Spithead: At the end of January, a total of 247 visa applications were pending at the British embassy in Amman, where all visa applications from both Jordan and Syria are processed. This included 145 applications from Iraqi citizens and 74 from stateless persons.

Waste Management: Household Bins

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the legal responsibility for household waste bins, in the event that they cause a road traffic or pedestrian accident, lies with the supplying council or the householder (a) when they are awaiting collection at the kerbside; (b) whilst they are being emptied; (c) after they have been emptied, in the place at which the collectors have left them; and (d) in their normal place when not due to be emptied.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Liability for a road traffic or pedestrian accident resulting from the placement of a household waste bin would depend on all the circumstances and would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Waste Management: Plastic Packaging

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether companies that have switched from using tin or aluminium packaging to plastic are permitted to claim the resultant weight loss towards the attainment of their packaging reduction targets.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes; as current targets are solely weight based, any switch to a lighter packaging format can be counted towards reduction targets.

Working Neighbourhoods Programme

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the allocations of funding and indicative or provisional funding for the working neighbourhoods programme to each relevant local authority for the current year and for the next three years.

Baroness Andrews: The overall allocation for area-based grant in 2009-10 (including the working neighbourhood fund element) was announced alongside the local government finance settlement on 4 February 2009. The area-based grant allocations are available on the Communities and Local Government website.